Alder v. Alder
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** CONNIE S. ALDER v. ROMAN ALDER (AC 19917) Lavery, C. J., and Foti and O Connell, Js. Submitted on briefs September 15 officially released November 7, 2000 Counsel David S. Grossman filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff). James R. Mulvey filed a brief for the appellee (defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from the judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties. The plaintiff, Connie S. Alder, claims that the trial court improperly (1) awarded time limited alimony, (2) failed to award counsel fees to her and (3) allowed overseas visitation of the partys minor child with the defendant, Roman Alder.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases is that this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts. . . . As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case, such as demeanor and attitude of the parties to the hearing. . . . In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Milbauer v. Milbauer, 54 Conn. App. 304, 320, 733 A.2d 907 (1999). [I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ignacio v. Montana-Ignacio, 57 Conn. App. 647, 648, 750 A.2d 491 (2000). [W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn. App. 335, 336 37, 748 A.2d 376, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 918, 755 A.2d 216 (2000). Nothing in the record, transcripts or briefs would warrant a conclusion by us that the trial court abused its discretion. The judgment is affirmed. 1 The court allowed the defendant to take their minor daughter to Germany to visit her paternal grandparents.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
